Stops and affricates and terminology

[Andrej A. Kibrik]

Dear colleagues,

I have been aware for this problem in English terminology for a while. In 
the Russian linguistic terminology, there is no such problem. Sounds such as 
[b] or [t] are named by a term that literally means "plosives" (vzryvnye). 
This makes good sense to me as in this kind of consonants there is a kind of 
"plosion", in contrast to affricates that gradually turn into a 
fricative-like component.

The cover term for "plosives" and affricates is the term that is very close 
in its meaning to "stops" (smychnye).

So I feel that:
1) it is very beneficial to have distinct terms for the narrower category 
and the broader category
2) the meaningful distribution of terms is such that the umbrella term is 
"stops", and "plosives" are those stops that are not affricates.

The opposite distribution of the terms "stops" and "plosives" seems 
counter-intuitive.

Andrej Kibrik


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "K. Rice" <rice at CHASS.UTORONTO.CA>
To: <ATHAPBASCKAN-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: Stops and affricates and terminology


> I've also used the term stops, saying it is a cover term for stops and
> affricates. I'd be fine with plosives too.
> Keren
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Joyce McDonough wrote:
>
>> James
>>
>> In a recent paper in Journal of Phonetics, we referred to this class as
>> a class of 'stops', defined it once as the stops and affricates.  It got
>> by the reviewers just fine.
>>
>> McDonough, J. and V. Wood (2008). "The stop contrasts of the Athabaskan
>> languages." Journal of Phonetics Issue 3, Pages 423-536.
>>
>>
>> Joyce McDonough
>>
>> James Crippen wrote:
>> > As far as I understand things, in all the Athabaskan languages the
>> > series of (oral) stops and affricates together form a natural class of
>> > consonants. Certainly this is true in Tlingit, where affricates behave
>> > like stops phonologically. (Phonetically they are quite different, of
>> > course.) The annoying thing is that I have to keep writing clumsy
>> > phrases like "all unaspirated stops and affricates", or "all ejective
>> > stops and affricates". Is there a term which unites both classes under
>> > a single umbrella? Something like "obstruent" but excluding
>> > fricatives? Saying "non-fricative obstruents" is even worse than
>> > "stops and affricates". I have asked all of my local phonologists,
>> > even the historical linguists, but none could think of such a term.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > James
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Joyce McDonough
>> Chair, Department of Linguistics
>> Associate Professor, Linguistics and Brain & Cognitive Sciences
>> Lattimore 505
>> University of Rochester
>> Rochester New York 14627
>>
>> 585 275-2895
>> 585 275-8053 (main office)
>>
>> http:/ling.rochester.edu/
>>
>> L'espirit de systeme, the propensity for constructing complete and 
>> overarching explanations based on exceptionless principles, may apply to 
>> some corners of reality, but this approach works especially poorly in the 
>> maximally complex world of natural history.
>>
>>     Stephan Jay Gould, "A tree grows in Paris" in The Lying Stones of 
>> Marrakech
>>